| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC479
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC479
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC479
Thursday, 25 June 2009.
Welfare Reform Bill
Main Bill Page
Copy of Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
7th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
14th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
9th Report from the Constitution Committee
Committee (6th Day)
2 pm
Clause 7: Abolition of income support
83: Clause 7, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) No category of person may have its eligibility for income support removed without a thorough examination of the proposals by the Social Security Advisory Council.”
Baroness Turner of Camden: We had a substantial discussion about the possibility of the removal of eligibility for income support at our last meeting. Several of us made it very clear that we had received letters from women—mostly carers—who were concerned lest their income support be removed and not replaced by anything else. We had some assurances from the Minister, who made it quite clear that he understood these worries. Indeed, he committed that there would be no removal of eligibility except after an affirmative resolution. We are very grateful for that. On the other hand, there are a lot of very concerned people out there. A lot of people are worried that they may lose their entitlement to income support, and income support is all that they have to exist on, particularly if they are carers.
In particular, I brought to the Committee’s notice a letter that I had received from a woman who was the carer for a disabled child. Quite clearly she was concerned that she would have her income support removed and not replaced by anything else unless she committed herself to waged work or work-related activity. It therefore seemed worth pursuing this amendment, the text of which was suggested by the TUC. As I said last time, the TUC is also very concerned about this because the clause gives the impression that there would be a substantial investigation by people concerned with social security, hence the requirement in the amendment that it be removed only following examination of the proposal to do so by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That would give further assurances to the people who have written to me, and to others who are so concerned that the income support that they have relied on may disappear without anything taking its place unless they commit themselves to work-related activity or some sort of waged employment. For those reasons, I think it is worth pursuing. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner said, we had a substantial debate on this in the last sitting of the Grand Committee, but it is no bad thing that she has moved her amendment. I am a huge fan of the Social Security Advisory Committee
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC480
Baroness Afshar: I add my support. In some of the letters that I have seen sent to lone parents, the last thing that seems to have been of concern is whether they were able to do waged work. The letters emphatically state that they will lose their benefits unless they present themselves for work. For many single parents and many other women it is not that easy because they do not have easy access to good transport and they do not have the time to do it. When they will be free is very unpredictable. I very much hope that this amendment will be included.
Lord Skelmersdale: The Committee will realise, if it remembers what I said on the last group of amendments, that I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on this one. However, I am not so sure that just putting the amendment into the Bill will be enough to satisfy those people from whom she has received correspondence.
I note from page 23 of the Peers’ information pack that, after the Bill gets cracking, 13 groups of people will remain on income support until they are migrated. As I understand the matter—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that is to be by statutory instrument for each group, so we will be able to look exactly at how the modified JSA affects individual groups under, presumably, some sort of period; I cannot imagine that it will all be done rapidly. A lot of thought will have to be given to those on income support who are entitled to statutory sick pay, for example, or—the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, would be interested in this—people involved in trade disputes. Each will have a slightly different formulation.
I cannot yet discover something; perhaps the Minister will help us. Page 23 states:
“With the exception of sick and disabled claimants and possibly those in receipt of statutory sick pay DWP plans to move them all onto the modified form of jobseeker’s allowance”.
The question behind the amendment is really whether the modified formulation of JSA will be appropriate to each and every one of the 13 groups. That is what the Minister needs to answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of Luton): I thank my noble friend Lady Turner for her amendment, which gives me another opportunity to provide some reassurance—I hope—on issues on which, I acknowledge from what she and other noble Lords have said, they have had a lot of correspondence.
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC481
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that we cannot remove entitlement to income support from any category of person without the SSAC’s thorough examination of the proposals. Throughout the process, we have always maintained that abolishing income support is the next logical step in streamlining and simplifying the benefit system. It builds on much of the work we have already done and will move us to a system based on two main benefits for people of working age—employment and support allowance and jobseeker’s allowance. However, we have also maintained that the process cannot be rushed; I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Step-by-step change is the only way we can ensure safe delivery and minimise disruption for our customers. Income support will be abolished only when there are no longer any groups for which it is needed, because alternative provision will have been made using either the new powers in Clause 3 or other available powers.
Although we have not made any final decisions yet, at this stage we do not expect to move everyone off income support at the same time. We have made it clear in previous debates that we will need to look carefully at the position of certain groups, particularly carers, which is why we need the flexibility that the clause provides.
On that basis, the removal of entitlement to income support for most groups is likely to be achieved through regulations made under Section 124 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. As a result, they will be subject to scrutiny by the advisory committee as part of its statutory duty to examine any regulations under Acts of Parliament governing social security.
It is true that when the clause is commenced, there may be some groups who have not yet moved off income support, although we will have set out where they will be moving to. As a result, the committee may not have the formal role suggested by the amendment when they are moved off it. However, in practice, we will continue to talk to the SSAC on issues such as this. There are voluntary arrangements currently in place that allow us to provide the committee with information on new legislation that would not normally fall within its remit. This includes new primary powers and the regulations made within six months of the commencement of those powers—the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, quite correctly referred to that. These arrangements are certainly something that we would pursue in respect of the clause.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, we have accepted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee, which concluded that Clause 7 should be subject to affirmative procedures, and will be tabling an amendment on Report to do just that.
I reiterate that income support is not abolished in the Bill; the Bill provides a mechanism to abolish income support by order. One of the main reasons for that approach is that there is no firm timetable because of the need for flexibility to ensure that all groups are
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC482
I hope that that is a reassurance to my noble friend and other noble Lords who have spoken that the SSAC will inevitably be involved in the detail as these matters move forward.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not want to repeat what I said at the end of our previous sitting in Grand Committee, but I feel honour bound to ask the Government to think very carefully before they decide finally to use an affirmative instrument to do away with income support. After all, these groups will no longer be on income support; there will be no income support customers for whom income support will be abolished. I therefore repeat my comment last Monday that it seems a very strange use of parliamentary time to use the affirmative procedure in those circumstances.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: In Committee in another place, we said that we would give full consideration to the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee, and it recommended that the affirmative procedure should be used for Clause 7.
Lord Skelmersdale: It would be a wonderful world if the Government of the day, especially this Government, accepted everything that all your Lordships’ Committees had to say, but that just ain't so.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: I thought I had put on the record already, and again today, that we have accepted that recommendation that it should be done by affirmative procedure. Perhaps I am missing the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: I do not understand it either, because if it was a negative instrument I, my noble friend Lord Kirkwood, or someone else would table a Take Note Motion at the very least, so it would be debated somewhere—either on the Floor of the House or here—in any case. Making it an affirmative instrument is not wasting the time of the House at all.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank very much everyone who has contributed to this debate. I listened to what my noble friend said with considerable interest. I think he went quite some way to deal with the concerns expressed by all of us about the letters we have had from women who are very worried that they will not get any benefit at all if they do not sign up for a work-related or other kind of commitment. I made a careful note when he said that no groups will be excluded or lose their entitlement before they have any other entitlement. In other words, individuals will not be simply left without anything. That is very important. People are concerned that if they do not sign up they will lose any benefit. It is important to have on the record that it is not the intention that groups of any kind should be left without an income, irrespective of what they may have in the way of caring or other commitments and so on.
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC483
In those circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment and read with great interest what has been said by all contributors to the debate, including my noble friend. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
2.15 pm
Schedule 2 : Abolition of income support: consequential amendments
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed.
Clause 8 : Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity
Amendments 85 to 93 not moved.
94: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Entitlement to tailored employment and career support
(1) All new employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants and existing incapacity benefit claimants who are migrated to ESA, who have a diagnosed mental health problem which impacts on their ability to undertake work, shall be entitled to an assessment carried out under, or linked to, the Access to Work scheme to determine what reasonable adjustments may improve the likelihood of retention should they find employment; and this assessment must be carried out before the claimant may be compelled to undertake any compulsory work-related activity.
(2) The assessment to be carried out under subsection (1) shall include evidence-gathering from agencies responsible for a person’s employment support and for the provision of health services here appropriate and must include at least one interview with the claimant.
(3) Any reasonable adjustments, recommended by the assessment, shall be funded through the Access to Work scheme and shall be available to any employer wishing to employ the claimant.
(4) Available funding for reasonable adjustments shall be communicated to employers by a claimant’s employment adviser and shall be transferable to a new employer in the event that the claimant moves jobs or employers.
(5) The assessment shall be reviewed regularly when the claimant moves jobs or employers (or both) to identify any changes to the adjustments required by the claimant.”
Lord Skelmersdale: The amendment is suggested by the Mental Health Coalition, a group of interested organisations consisting of Mind, Rethink, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, groups that I am sure that noble Lords
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC484
The amendment would work by giving all ESA claimants an entitlement to an assessment carried out by, or linked to, Access to Work funding, to determine what adjustments might reasonably be made to improve the likelihood of a pension should they find employment. A claimant would not be compelled to undertake compulsory work-related activity until this assessment had taken place. The amendment would ensure that reasonable adjustments recommended in the assessment are to be funded through Access to Work, and are to be available to any employer.
Access to Work is of course administered by Jobcentre Plus and aims to assist people with a disability or health condition who are in paid employment or about to start a job by providing practical support and help to meet additional costs associated with overcoming work-related obstacles resulting from their disability or health condition. Dame Carol Black’s review of employment, which the Minister and I were discussing in part last night, called for tailored support for people out of work, in both finding employment and keeping it. The scheme proposed in the amendment should be seen in this context, as a complement to existing schemes, very much in tune with the individual nature of the action plans that we have been developing.
Evidence gathered by the organisation that developed the amendment suggests that Access to Work does not yet work effectively for people with mental health problems. Too few people with mental health problems are taking advantage of the scheme, and employers do not have sufficient support and understanding.
In 2007-08, just 180 claims to Access to Work were made for mental health adjustments out of an overall total of just under 30,000. This seems, to me at least, to be a painfully low figure. The conclusion that one comes to is that if we can create greater flexibility in the timing of Access to Work assessments so that people can receive an estimate of the support they can expect to receive, take-up would improve and one hopes that employer discrimination would be reduced. Individual assessments before interview would help make people with mental health problems more attractive to employers. These adjustments should follow the person through their career to ensure that barriers are not perpetuated for people with mental health problems as they progress through that career. We must presume that it will be a powerful counterbalance to the fears of an employer of costs involved in adjustments and potential time off if a person is able to explain how much help Access to Work is likely to provide to the firm they are trying to work for.
I shall be very interested to hear the views of other noble Lords on this matter, not least the Minister, because I feel that we have an opportunity to address an area where we know there to be a weakness in the system; namely, helping those with diagnosed mental health problems to get into and retain employment. I beg to move.
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC485
Baroness Thomas of Winchester: We strongly support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, it brings us to a discussion about an entitlement to an assessment under the admirable Access to Work scheme for those with a diagnosed mental health problem which impacts—as the amendment says—on their ability to undertake work.
Last year the funding of Access to Work was doubled but there is no evidence yet to suggest that it is working particularly well in the mental health field, as the noble Lord has just said, or for people with learning difficulties, although I accept that the latter category of people are not specified in this amendment. What is clear is that far too few employers understand what Access to Work is all about. If there is some understanding about help for those with mobility problems, there is even less understanding about help for those with mental health problems. The amendment would ensure that all ESA claimants in the employment group would be entitled to an assessment with a view to determining the necessary adjustments needed under the Access to Work fund to enable them eventually to find and then keep a job, which is a very practical way of helping both claimants and prospective employers. As Mind has said, Access to Work does not support individuals to “sell” themselves to prospective employers at present as it is not perceived to be part of an individual’s “capital”. Often, the slow bureaucracy puts people at a severe disadvantage.
Another very important voice in this whole debate is the committee we have just been talking about—the Social Security Advisory Committee—which says that the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprise employers with the whole issue of the reasonable adaptations that need to be made to overcome barriers for disabled people has not been considered in enough depth. In particular, it stresses that the needs of those with fluctuating mental health conditions should be considered more fully. I shall come back to that in a moment. The committee makes the point that engagement with employers is important, as is the education and training provided to personal advisers in providing services to claimants in this position. As I have said before, that has been something of a leitmotiv through this whole Grand Committee.
Coming back to the mental health issue, two groups of people with severe mental health problems have been brought to my attention in the past few days, about whom there is great concern. There is a letter in today’s Guardian about it. These are mostly people with schizophrenia and those who are bipolar. These are serious but fluctuating conditions with a wide range of characteristics. It is quite possible that claimants who suffer from either condition will be in the employment rather than in the support group, and will therefore be expected to be on the journey into work by undertaking work-related activity. I could have raised this issue under a Clause 8 stand part debate, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is relevant enough to this amendment to raise it here.
Others in this Grand Committee know far more about schizophrenia than I do, but I have taken some instruction from my noble friend Lord Alderdice, who is a psychiatrist. He said that when people who have
25 Jun 2009 : Column GC486
“We need a system in which people suffering fluctuating conditions are able to move in and out of work without fear of punishment or loss of income. It will require flexibility in a properly funded system, government support for employers, an integration of non-coercive support, therapy and care for people with mental illness. Instead of the Bill contributing to the problem of mental illness in Britain, it could become part of the solution”.
The last sentence is important because it demonstrates that the kind of support outlined in part in the amendment is what people are calling for, and not that those with fluctuating mental health conditions should be exempt from seeking work. One scheme which is having some success in the pathfinder project is the condition management programme and I wonder whether there are any plans to expand it under the Bill.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |